YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE …YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE...

YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECTADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This procedure defines the requirements and responsibilities for prepar-ation, review, and approval of the Yucca Mountain Project Site Characteriza-tion Plan (SCP) Study Plans. This procedure implements the U.S. Department ofEnergy/U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (DOE/NRC) Format and ContentRequirements for SCP Study Plans (Exhibit 1).

2.0 APPLICABILITY

This procedure applies to all Study Plans developed by the Project par-ticipants to support the Yucca Mountain Project SCP.

3.0 DEFINITIONS

3.1 DOCMENT REVIEW

A document review is a documented, traceable review of documents, mate-rial, or data that may consist of a technical review, Assistant Manager forAdministration -Technical Publications (AMAT) review, regulatory review,quality assurance review, and/or management review.

3.2 INTERIM REVISION NOTICE (IRN)

An IRN is an approved and controlled document that is used to temporarilychange an approved Study Plan prior to revising the affected plan in accord-ance with this procedure, or is used to temporarily change the Statutory SCPfor consistency with an approved Study Plan.

3.3 MANAGEMENT REVIEW

A management review is an examination of a document to determine itscompliance with requirements established by approved Yucca Mountain Projectmanagement plans, procedures, and DOE policies as described-by the DOE/NevadaOperations Office and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management(OCRWM). This review includes an examination to determine if the documentfulfills the established milestone criteria.

3.4 MANDATORY COMMENTS

Mandatory comments are those a reviewer determines represent significanttechnical concerns or inconsistencies with applicable DOE policies and regu-latory requirements. Mandatory comments require resolution by the author(s)and reviewer. Reviewers must cite the applicable requirement, quality assur-ance provision, or technical rationale for changing the SCP Study Plan.


CONTINUATION PAGE

AP-1.100 PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

3. 5 NONMANDATORY COMMENTS

Nonmandatory comments are those the reviewer designates as suggestionsthe author(s) about the organization or content of the document. These com-ments do not constitute a significant weakness in the document. Nonmandatory

comments are incorporated at the discretion of the author(s). All nonmanda-tory comments except editorial changes are resolved on comment response forms.

3.6 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (PI)

The PI is the individual who has the technical responsibility for a par-ticular technical task. This responsibility includes, but is not limited to,planning and cost control, the day-to-day technical direction and control ofthe iten or activity and the assembly of a support team to accomplish theitem or activity. This term may be synonymous with task leader or projectengineer depending on the YuccA Mountain Project participants.

3.7 QUALIFIED REVIEWER

Qualified reviewers are i n depe n dent of the work pe rformed and havedemonstrated expertise in their area of review. Expertise can be establishedby the reviewer's job description, education, or other experience.

3.8 QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW

A quality assurance review is an examination of a document to determineits compliance with the DOE Order relating to Quality Assurance (DOE/NV5700.6B), the Yucca Mountain Project Quality Assurance Plan (NNWSI/BE-9), andProject quality-related administrative procedures.

3.9 REGULATORY REVIEW

A regulatory review is an examination of a document to determine consist-ency with the SCP and with applicable NRC requirements and agreements.

3.10 SCP STUDY PLAN

An SCP Study Plan is a DOE document that describes the studies, activi-ties, tests, and analyses that constitute site characterization activities asdefined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987. The plan is con-sistent with the descriptions presented in Chapter 8 of the SCP or supple-mented in SCP progress reports. The required level of detail, format, andcontent of the Study Plans are defined in the May 7 and 8. 1986, agreementbetween the NRC and the DOE (Exhibit 1).


. CONTINUATION PAGE

AP-1.10Q PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCPJ STUDY PLANS

3.11 TECHNICAL REVIEW

A technical review is a documented, traceable review performed byqualified personnel who are independent of those performing the work but haveexpertise in the work described. Technical reviews are in-depth, criticalanalyses and evaluations of documents, material, or data.

4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1 YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT MANAGER

The Project Manager or a designee is responsible for final approval ofthe SCP Study Plans and for transmitting SCP Study Plans to the OCRWM fortheir approval.

4.2 DIRECTOR, REGULATORY AND SITE EVALUATION DIVISION (R*SED)

The Director. R&SED, or a designee is responsible for coordinating thepreparation. review, and approval of SCP Study Plans in accordance with thisprocedure, including the resolution of comments generated by the OCRWM, theNRC, and the State of Nevada.

4.3 YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT STUDY PLAN COORDINATOR (SPC)

The Yucca Mountain Project SPC is responsible for assisting the Director,R&SED, with coordination of the Study Plan preparation, review, revision, andapproval. The SPC is responsible for all Yucca Mountain Project actions oththan final approvals, letters of direction, and approval of mandatory commentresolutions, and coordinates Yucca Mountain Project Study Plan reviews amongthe divisions of the Yucca Mountain Project Office (Project Office). TheYucca Mountain Project SPC is a member of the Regulatory Interaction Branch ofthe R&SED.

4.4 TECHNICAL PROJECT OFFICERS (TPOS)

The TPOs and their designated technical staff are responsible for pre-paring and reviewing SCP Study Plans in their area of program responsibilityin accordance with the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) and the Work BreakdownStructure (WBS), for submitting approved Study Plans to the Yucca MountainProject, for providing technical experts for independent Project technicalreviews of SCP Study Plans, and for resolving comments from the Project, theOCRWM, and the NRC reviews.


CONTINUATION PAGE

AP-1.10Q PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

4. 5 TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (T&MSS) SPC

The T&MSS SPC is responsible for assisting the Project Office in reviewand approval of the SCP Study Plans, including technical, management, qualityassurance, and regulatory reviews completed by the Project, the OCRWM, and theNRC, and for tracking the status of Study Plan preparation and review.

4.6 OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

The OCRWM is responsible for interfacing with the NRC and providingguidance to the Project Office in the area of Study Plan completion. TheOCRWM reviews and approves SCP Study Plans.

5.0 PROCEDURE

5.1 STUDY PLAN PREPARATION

5.1.1 The TPOs designate a principal investigator or other technical staff toprepare Study Plans in accordance with the following requirements:

1. Plans must be editorially consistent with the OCRWM ProductionGuidance Manual (1985) to the extent practicable.

2. Plans must conform to level of detail, format, and content specifiedin the May 7 and 8, 1986, DOE/NRC agreement (Exhibit 1).

3. Plans must include an abstract provided in front of the table ofcontents.

4. Plans must include an appendix that provides additional informationon the quality assurance measures that will be applied to Study Planactivities. The appendix must give quality assurance level assign-ments for activities.

5. Plans must be consistent with the descriptions of the study given inSection 8.3 of the Statutory SCP, unless an IRN (Exhibit 2) isprovided.

5.1.2 Participating organizations perform technical reviews of Study Plansprepared or revised by them in accordance with their procedures.

5.1.3 The TPO or a designee ensures that the Study Plans meet the require-ments given in paragraph 5.l.l and that the plans are prepared and reviewed byqualified staff.

-


CONTINUATION PAGE


5.1.4 If the Study Plan differs from the Statutory SCP in purpose, goals,scope, or testing methods, then the TPO, or a designee, prepares an IRN(Exhibit 2) to request changes to the SCP.

5.1.5 The TPO or a designee submits the participant approved Study Plan, anyIRN and the qualifications of the principal investigators to the Director,

5.1.6 The Yucca Mountain Project SPC will maintain a list of qualifiedprincipal investigators and supporting documentation for the Director, R&SED

5.2 PROJECT REVIEW OF STUDY PLAN

5.2.1 The Yucca Mountain Project SPC, or a designee, documents completion ofmajor steps in the Project review process on the Checklist for Review of StudyPlans (Exhibit 3).

5.2.2 Upon receipt of a draft Study Plan, the Division Director, R&SED, or adesignee initiates through the T&MSS SPC a screening review of the Study Planfor overall format and content consistency with the SCP and for completenessof any Study Plan IRNs.

5.2.3 The T&MSS SPC documents the result of the screening review in a memo tothe Director, R&SED.

5.2.4 If significant deficiencies are identified, the Director,. R&SED,returns the Study plan to the TPO with instructions for revision.

5.2.5 When no significant deficiencies are identified, the Director, R&SED,or a designee prepares a written request for management, quality assurance,regulatory, and technical reviews of the Study Plan in accordance with thisprocedure. The written request establishes the review criteria, tne proposedreviewers, and the schedule for completing the review. The review criteriamust be consistent with the definitions of review given in this procedure andmay include additional review criteria, if necessary.

5.2.6 Reviews of Study Plans are performed only by qualified staff. Qualifi-cations of reviewers will be completed internally by participant organizationsand provided to the Yucca Mountain Project SPC by the TPO prior to initiationof the Project review. The Yucca Mountain Project SPC maintains a list ofqualified Study Plan reviewers, principal investigator(s), and supportingdocumentation.

5.2.7 Review criteria should be consistent with the definitions of reviewsgiven in this procedure and may be supplemented by the Director, .R&SED, ifnecessary.


CONTINUATION PAGE

Ap-l.l0Q PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

5.2.7.: The management reviewers examine the study plan for consistency withDOE policies and programmatic interfaces, including as a minimum SCP schedulesand milestones, technical integration, and environmental permitting. Themanagement reviewers also ensure that quality assurance level assignments havebeen completed and satisfy the applicable provisions of NNWSI/88-9.

5.2.1.2 The quality assurance reviewers examine the document for consistencywith the quality assurance requirements of the Project, including as a minimumthe quality assurance level assignments for the planned work.

5.2.7. 3 The technical reviewers examine the document for consistency with thetechnical program described in the SCP. They evaluate the technical adequacyof the Study Plan, including as a minimum. the descriptions of proposed testsand analyses, interrelationships with other studies, ties to performance anddesign issues, consideration of alternative test methods, and qualityassurance level assignments.

5.2.7.4 The regulatory reviewers examine the Study Plan for consistency withapplicable NRC requirements and agreements.

5.2.8 Reviewers document all comments on comment resolution forms (CRFs,Exhibit 4) and categorize comments as mandatory or nonmandatory (see Sections3.4 and 3.5). A proposed resolution should be included. Reviewers recordeditorial comments on the text and attach the text to the set of CRFs.Editorial comments marked on the text will not become part of the permanentcomment-response record. After completing the review, reviewers return thecompleted CRFs to the Director, R&SED.

5.3 COMMENT RESOLUTION

5.3.1 The Yucca Mountain Project SPC compiles a complete set of CRFs andforwards this set to the responsible TPO. After the principal investigator(s)reviews the comments, a comment resolution meeting may be scheduled to resolvemandatory comments. As a minimum, the principal investigator(s), the YuccaMountain Project SPC or a designee, and reviewers will attend the meeting.

5.3.2 If the principal investigator(s) and reviewers are unable to resolve amandatory comment, the Director, R&SED, develops a final disposition. Thefinal disposition is based on an agreeable compromise, an independent techni-cal review, or a peer review. The responsible TPO coordinates revision cf theStudy Plan to address mandatory comments and completion of the final disposi-tion column on the CRFs. The responsible TPO submits the revised Study Planand completed CRFs to the Director, R&SED.

5.3.3 The Yucca Mountain Project SPC or a designee distributes the revisedStudy Plan and CRFs for mandatory comments to the reviewers.


CONTINUATION PAGE

AP-l.10Q PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

5.3.4 The reviewers will verify resolutions of their Mandatory comments. Iftheir mandatory comments have been resolved, the reviewers sign and returntheir CRFs to the Director, R&SED.

5.3.5 If the mandatory comment resolution is inadequate, the reviewer noti-fies the Director, R&SED. The Director, R&SED, returns the package to theresponsible TPO with instructions for revision.

5.3.6 When comment resolution is finalized, the Director, R&SED, will signthe review checklist (Exhibit 2).

5.4 YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT APPROVAL

Upon completion of the management, quality assurance, regulatory, andtechnical reviews, a copy of the revised Study Plan and the comment resolutionrecord is submitted to the Director, R&SED, for approval. The Director,R&SED, signs the Yucca Mountain Project approval form (Exhibit 5) and forwardsthe form to the Project Quality Manager and the Project manager for signature.

5.5 OCRWM REVIEW AND APPROVAL

5.5.1 The OCRWM reviews SCP Study Plans in parallel with or following theProject review. The Director, R&SED provides the lead Branch Chief, OCRWM,ten copies of the Study Plan and any SCP IRNs. The OCRWM review of the StudyPlan is completed in accordance with their procedures.

5.5.2 After the OCRWM has completed their Study Plan review and consolidatedtheir comments on OCRWM CRFs, a comment resolution meeting may be scheduled todiscuss the OCRWM mandatory comments and to reach agreement with the Projecton the proposed resolutions. As a minimum, the principal investigator(s) andthe Yucca Mountain Project SPC or a designee participate in the commentresolution meeting.

5.5.3 If the participants in the OCRWM comment resolution meeting are unableto resolve a mandatory comment, then the lead OCRWM Branch Chief and theDirector, R&SED, develop a final resolution based on an agreeable compromise,an independent technical review, or a peer review. If resolution cannot beobtained at this level, the appropriate Headquarters Division Director and theYucca Mountain Project Manager are consulted to facilitate comment resolution

5.5.4 The Director, R&SED, directs the responsible TPO to initiate resolutionof the comments and revision of the Study Plan. The responsible TPO submitsthe revised text and completed OCRWM CRFs to the Yucca Mountain Project SPC.

5.5.5 The Yucca Mountain Project SPC or a designee reviews the revised StudyPlan to verify the adequacy of the changes to the text and advises the


CONTINUATION PAGE

AP-l.10Q PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

Director, R&SED, of the results. If the OCRWM comment resolution is incom-plete, the Director, R&SED, returns the Study Plan to the responsible TPO foradditional revision. If the resolution of OCRWM comments is deemed to beadequate, the Director, R&SED, Project Quality Manager, and Project Managerapprove the Study Plan (Exhibit 5). The Director, R&SED, forwards the StudyPlan to the OCRWM for approval.

5.6 NRC REVIEW

5.6.1 After OCRWM approval, the OCRWM forwards the Study Plan to the NRC forreview and to the State of Nevada for their information. The OCRWM alsoforwards a copy of the completed OCRWM CRFs to the Director, R&SED, for theProject file.

5.6.2 The Yucca Mountain Project SPC or a designee documents written commentsreceived from the NRC on CRFs (Exhibit 4). The Yucca Mountain Project SPC andthe principal investigator(s) work with the OCRWM to develop proposed resolu-tions to the NRC written comments. This may include meetings with the NRC forclarification of the written comments and for discussion of proposed resolu-tions to the written comments.

5.6.3 The TPO or a designee revises the Study Plan according to the proposedresolutions to address major NRC and State of Nevada comments and submits therevised Study Plan and completed CRFs to the Director, R&SED.

5.6.4 The Yucca Mountain Project SPC reviews the revised Study Plan to verifythat the NRC comments have been adequately addressed. If the comment resolu-tion is incomplete, the Director, R&SED, returns the Study Plan to the respon-sible TPO for revision. If the comment resolution is adequate, the Director,R&SED, Project Quality Manager, and Project Manager sign the approval sheet(Exhibit 5). The Project Manager forwards the Study Plan to the OCRWM fortheir approval.

5.7 REVISION OF APPROVED STUDY PLANS

If revisions to approved Study Plans prove to be necessary, proposed revisionsare incorporated by the principal investigator or a designee as directed bythe Project Office Revisions may be initiated by the principal investiga-tor(s), the TPO, or representatives of the Yucca Mountain Project.

5.7.1 Revision and review of major changes to the purpose, scope, testingstrategy, test methods, and quality assurance level assignments follow theprocedures outlined in Sections 5.2 and .3 for the preparation and review of

the original Study Plan.

5.7.2 To implement minor revisions to an approved Study Plan, the TPO or adesignee prepares an IRN (Exhibit 2) as a temporary method to identify these


CONTINUATION PAGE


changes. The responsible TPO approves the IRN and submits the signed IRN tothe Director, R&SED, for review and approval.

5.7.3 The Director, R&SED, evaluates the scope of the IRN and, if necessary,prepares a transmittal letter to initiate a Project review of the IRN. A Pro-ject review is only required if the Director, R&SED, does not consider theproposed revisions to be minor. The transmittal letter will define the typesof review required for IRN approval.

5.7.4 The reviewer(s) documents all comments on the IRN and proposed resolu-tions to the comments on CRFs (see Section 5.2.8).

5.7.5 The Director, R&SED, compiles a complete set of CRFs and forwards thisset to the responsible TPO. Comment resolution follows the proceduresestab1ished in Section 5.3 of this procedure.

5.8 DISTRIBUTION OF SCP STUDY PLANS AND IRNs

Study Plans and IRNs are maintained and controlled in accordance withQMP-06-02, Document Control. Study Plans and IRNs are distributed by theT&MSS Information Management Division to individuals designated by theDirectcr, R&SED.

6.0 REFERENCES

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, December 21, 1987, inOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. Public Law 100-203,December 22, 1987.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement# 1985. Production Guidance Manual.

U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, JuneQuality Assurance Plan, NNWSI/88-9 (Revision 1), Las

26, 1981.Vegas, Nevada.

U.S. Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain Project Office, 1988 (inpreparation). W-06-02, Document Control (Revision 0).

7.0 APPLICABLE FORMS

Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 3.

Interim Revision Notice.

Checklist for Review of Study Plans.


CONTINUATION PAGE


Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 5.

Study Plan Comment Resolution Form.

Approval Form for Study Plans.

8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS

Document submitted for review.

Transmittal letter initiating Project review.

Reviewer qualifications documents.

Complete copy of the comment resolution record.

Completed Study Plan checklist.

Approved revisions of the Study Plan.


CONTINUATION PAGE

AP-1.l0Q PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

1 Purpose and Objectives of Studies:

1.1 Objectives of the Study

Describe the information that will be obtained in this study.Briefly discuss how this information will be used: and

1.2 Regulatory Rationale and Justification,

Provide the rationale and justification for the information to beobtained by the study. It can be justified by: 1) a performancegoal and a confidence level in that goal (developed via the perform-ance allocation process and results that will be described elsewherein the SCP): 2) a design goal and a confidence level in that goal(design goals beyond those related to performance issues): 3) directFederal, State, and other regulatory requirements for specificstudies. Where relevant performance or design goals actually applyat a higher level than the study (e.g., where the goals apply to agroup of studies), describe the relationship between this study andthat higher level goal.

2. Rationale for Selected Study:

2.1 Technical Rationale and Justification

Provide the rationale and justification for the selected tests andanalyses. (including standard tests). Indicate the alternative testand analytical methods from which they were selected, includingoptions for type of test, instrumentation, data collection andrecording, and alternative analytical approaches. Describe theadvantages and limitations of the various options: and

Provide the rationale for the selected number, location, duration,and timing of tests with consideration to various sources of uncer-tainty (e.g., test method, interference with other tests, and esti-mated parameter variability). This rationale should also identify

Exhibit 1. DOE/NRC Requirements for Format and Content of SCP Study Plans


CONTINUATION PAGE

AP-l.l0Q PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

reasonable alternatives: summarize reasons for not selecting thesealternatives, and reference, if available, reports which evaluatealternatives considered.

2.2 Constraints on the study

Describe the constraints that exist for the study, and explain howthese constraints affect selection of test methods and analyticalapproaches. Factors to be considered include:

- Potential impacts on the site from testing:- Whether the study needs to simulate repository conditions:- Required accuracy and precision of parameters to be measured with

test instrumentation:- Limits cf analytical methods that will use the information from

the tests:- Capability of analytical methods to support the study:- Time required versus time available to complete the study:- The scale of the phenomena, especially the limitations of the

equipment relative to the scale of the phenomena to be measuredand the applicability of studies conducted in the laboratory tothe scale of the phenomena in the field:

- Interrelationships of tests involving significant interferencewith other tests and how plans have been designed or sequenced ::address such interference: and

- Interrelationships involving significant interference among testsand ESF design and construction, as appropriate (refer to Section4.4 of the SCP or its references for specific ESF design informa-tion).

3. Description of Tests and Analyses:

o Since studies are comprised of tests and analyses, provide for eachtype of test:

- Describe the general approach that will be used in the test.Describe key parameters that will be measured in the test and theexperimental conditions under which the test will be conducted.Indicate the number of tests and their locations (e g., spatiallocation relative to the site, ESF elements, repository layout,stratigraphic units, depth, and test location);

Exhibit 1. DOE/NRC Requirements for Format and Content of SCP Study Plans

(continued)


CONTINUATION PAGE

AP- 1.10Q PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

- Summarize the test methods. Reference any standard procedures(e.g., ASTM, API) to be used. If any of the procedures to be usedare not standard, or if a standard procedure will be modified,summarize the steps of the test, how it will be modified, andreference the technical procedures that will be followed during thetest. If procedures are not yet available, indicate when they willbe available. Indicate the level of quality assurance and providea rationale for any tests which are not judged to be QA Level 1Reference the applicable specific QA requirements that will beapplied to the test;

- Specify the tolerance, accuracy, and precision required in thetest, where appropriate;

- Indicate the range of expected results of the test and the basisfor those expected results;List the equipment required for the test and describe briefly anysuch equipment that is special;

- Describe techniques to be used for data reduction and analysis ofthe results;

- Discuss the representativeness of the test including why the testresults are considered representative of future conditions or thespatial variability of existing conditions. Also indicatelimitations and uncertainties that will apply to the use of theresults;Provide illustrations such as maps, cross sections, and facilitydesign drawings to show the locations of tests and schematiclayouts of tests, andRelationship of the test to the set performance goals andconfidence levels.

o For each type of analysis:

- State the purpose of the analysis, indicating the testing or designactivity being supported. Indicate what conditions or environmentswill be evaluated and any sensitivity or uncertainty analyses thatwill be performed. Discuss the relationship of the analysis to theset performance goals and confidence levels;

- Describe the methods of analysis, including any analyticalexpressions and numerical models that will be employed;

- Reference the technical procedures document that will be followedduring the analysis. If procedures are not yet available, indicatewhen they will be available. Indicate the level of quality

Exhibit 1. DOE/NRC Requirements for Format and Content of SCP Study Plans(continued).


CONTINUATION PAGE

AF-1.l0Q PREPARATION REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

assurance that will be applied to the analysis and provide arationale for any analyses that are not judged to be QA Level 1Reference the applicable QA requirements:

- Identify the data input requirements of the analysis:- Describe the expected output and accuracy of the analysis: and- Describe the representativeness of the analytical approach e.g.,

with respect to spatial variability of existing conditions andfuture conditions) and indicate limitations and uncertainties thatwill apply to the results.

4. Application ef Results:

Briefly discuss where the results from the study will be used for thesupport of other studies (performance assessment design, andcharacterization studies);

4.1 Resolution of Design and Performance Issues

For performance assessment uses, refer to specific performanceassessment analyses (described in Section 1.3.5 of the SCP) thatwill use the information produced from the studies described above,and refer to any use of the results for model validation:

For design uses, refer to, or describe, where the information fromthe study described above will be used in construction equipmentdesign and development, and engineering system design anddevelopment (e.g., waste package, repository engineered barriers,and shafts and borehole seals); and

4.2 Interfaces with other site characterization studies

For characterization uses, refer to, or describe, where the informa-tion from the study described above will be used in planning othercharacterization activities.



CONTINUATION PAGE

AP-1.l0Q PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

Schedules and Milestones:

o Provide the durations of and interrelationships among the principalactivities associated with conducting the study (e.g., preparationof test procedures, test set-ups, testing, data analyses, preparationof reports), and indicate the key milestones including decision pointsassociated with the study activities;

o Describe the timing of this study relative to other studies and otherprogram activities that will affect, or will be effected by, theschedule for completion of the subject study; and

o Dates for ac t ivities or milestones, including durations and inter-relationships, for the study plans will be provided. These shouldreference the master schedules provided in Section 8.5. of the SCP.



CONTINUATION PAGE



CONTINUATION PAGE


CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW OF STUDY PLANS


CONTINUATION PAGE


STUDY PLAN COMMENT RESOLUTION FORM


CONTINUATION PAGE

AP-l.l0Q PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF SCP STUDY PLANS

YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT

YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE …YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE...

Documents

Transcript of YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE …YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE...